Saga - 1981, Blaðsíða 123

FISKVEIÐIÁKVÆÐIN 1762
121
during the 18th Century.” Its aim is to compare two systems of government: the
bureaucratic autocracy in Denmark-Norway-Iceland and the parliamentary system
of Sweden-Finland. The objective is to clarify the relationship between the central
Power and the local communities with regard to the decision-making process.
Certain aspects have been selected for study, among them regulations regarding
economic policy.
In 1762 the Danish authorities appointed an inspector of Icelandic fishing who
Prepared certain decrees. The most important changes involved prohibiting inland
farmers from buying fish from the coastal farmers (in order to force them to do
their own fishing) as well as imposing on local officials (sýslumenn, sheriffs) the
duty to deliver statistical accounts of the fishing within their districts every year.
However, these decrees were annulled already the following year. Where did the
'nitiative for these decrees originate from, how was their implementation attempt-
ed and why were they annulled?
Most likely the initiative came from the merchants. Trade was monopolized and
Was at this period run by the Danish Crown. If the prohibition against fish-trade
had been carried into effect, it would have meant the re-construction of the Ice-
landic economy to suit the needs of the trade monopoly. The sheriffs were
supposed to ensure the implementation of the decrees. Many of them, however,
°bjected strongly, in particular to the extra work this would impose on them. The
Prefect (amtmaður) supported their objections and maintained that the sheriffs
had the right to demand economic compensation from the crown. The officials
also believed that the prohibition against fish-trade was harmful to the public. The
fishing inspector on his part charged the Icelandic officials with obstructing his
w°rk. The central government on the other hand ignored his complaints and in
compliance with the prefect's opinion annulled the controversial points in 1763.
h may be assumed that the opposition of the Icelandic officials proved decisive
for the annulment. Their immediate, forceful and unanimous protests must have
made an impression in Copenhagen. The local officials were situated far from any
effective controlling power and they had what amounted to a monopoly on expert
mformation regarding Icelandic conditions. The central power had little chance of
effecting anything against their will.